Google has confirmed that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is opening an investigation into the company's business practices.

In an official blog post on Friday entitled "Supporting choice, ensuring economic opportunity," the company said it had received notification from the FTC regarding the initiation of a review of its business.

"We respect the FTCs process and will be working with them (as we have with other agencies) over the coming months to answer questions about Google and our services," the post read.

Google said the exact nature of the commission's concerns remained unclear, while continuing to vouch for the reliability and integrity of its search results. The post highlighted the company's guiding principles for search, which include:
Do whats best for the user.Provide the most relevant answers as quickly as possible.Label advertisements clearly.Be transparent.Loyalty, not lock-in.
"These are the principles that guide us, and we know theyll stand up to scrutiny. Were committed to giving you choices, ensuring that businesses can grow and create jobs, and, ultimately, fostering an Internet that benefits us all," the company said.

Rumblings of an imminent FTC antitrust investigation emerged earlier in the week. Sources close to the federal agency told The New York Times that FTC lawyers had been looking into Google's search and advertising operations for months to determine whether the company had engaged in "illegal anticompetitive behavior" in its search result rankings and advertising sales.

Google's success in the search engine market has drawn comparisons to Microsoft's Windows monopoly. As of May, Google held 65.5 percent of the U.S. search market, while Yahoo and Microsoft's Bing accounted for 16 percent and 14 percent, respectively.

During the search engine's rise to prominence, rival companies have called for antitrust investigations of Google. One organization, FairSearch.org, represents companies, including Expedia, Travelocity, Kayak and Microsoft, concerned that "Google is abusing its search monopoly to thwart competition."

"Google engages in anticompetitive behavior across many vertical categories of search that harms consumers, the organization said in a statement. The result of Googles anticompetitive practices is to curb innovation and investment in new technologies by other companies.

Apple's complicated relationship will likely come under scrutiny during the FTC investigation. Last year, the agency cited the Cupertino, Calif., iPhone maker's entry into the advertising market as a reason to approve Google's acquisition of advertising agency AdMob. Apple launched the iAd platform last year after acquiring Quattro Wireless.

I'm as confused about this as Google is. Why exactly is the FTC investigating Google? They don't really fit the classic definition of a monopoly. Anyone can choose another search engine as their default.

I'm as confused about this as Google is. Why exactly is the FTC investigating Google? They don't really fit the classic definition of a monopoly. Anyone can choose another search engine as their default.

Very true, and it's not even set up as the default with the majority of computers sold, since Internet Explorer has Bing by default, so I'm not really sure why there is a monopoly issue with Google. There are many other, more serious and real problems, but not a monopoly.

As long as Google doesn't behave as arrogant as Microsoft did back in 2000, this will pass. Remember when judge Thomas Penfield Jackson wanted to split Microsoft because they pissed him off? Then the EU got involved and drilled them a new one...

Google just has to be cool and cooperate with the FTC. They may be asked to correct a few things here and there but Google will remain Google.

Obviously Microsoft is the primary company behind this. They want to destroy Google but may end up destroying themselves trying.

I'm as confused about this as Google is. Why exactly is the FTC investigating Google? They don't really fit the classic definition of a monopoly. Anyone can choose another search engine as their default.

The core of the matter is in Google's ranking system. 3rd parties are upset because Google is promoting it's services over theirs.

Usually typing in a generic term like Maps, and you'll see Google maps is the 1st followed by Yahoo, mapquest and Bing.

I'm as confused about this as Google is. Why exactly is the FTC investigating Google? They don't really fit the classic definition of a monopoly. Anyone can choose another search engine as their default.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hittrj01

Very true, and it's not even set up as the default with the majority of computers sold, since Internet Explorer has Bing by default, so I'm not really sure why there is a monopoly issue with Google. There are many other, more serious and real problems, but not a monopoly.

It's very simple if you don't willfully ignore the problem. Google is massively dominant in search, and it's using that dominance to increase its revenues and leverage itself into one market after another by manipulating search results in its favor

It's very simple if you don't willfully ignore the problem. Google is massively dominant in search, and it's using that dominance to increase its revenues and leverage itself into one market after another by manipulating search results in its favor

Indeed, and using other things like Android to entrench its search dominance. I'm also willing to bet that Skyhook is one of the complainants.

It's very simple if you don't willfully ignore the problem. Google is massively dominant in search, and it's using that dominance to increase its revenues and leverage itself into one market after another by manipulating search results in its favor

There could be multiple problems not a single one. Google DOES favor it's own service, but is not afraid to show alternatives ergo the link I provided for maps.

As part of it's advertising Google hands over some code to it's advertisers to tweak to get desired search results. Some of these advertisers have been noted for hiring 3rd party developers who can't tweak to save their lives and thus failing to get the desired results.

NO. Skyhook wanted to be the default maps service and have Exclusive rights to data collection on Motorola handsets barring any other option via contract of Which Google would not allow for it's sake, of for 3rd party apps using Maps API's. Google also feared compatibility issues with XPS.

Skyhook revised their code, but neither it nor Motorola tested and submitted the code to Google. Skyhook pushed Moto into submitting the code into their UI regardless of Google's approval. Moto got fed up and cancelled their contract with skyhook. Skyhook got pissed and that's how the lawsuit was born.

Skyhook tried to sue Google for potential damages. It was thrown out in great part in that XPS was used in Many Non-android and Apple products and that their revenue stream was not being affected by such a decision.

There could be multiple problems not a single one. Google DOES favor it's own service, but is not afraid to show alternatives ergo the link I provided for maps.

Google also offers some of the best services on the Web. Try not using Google search, Google map and Google Translate for a while and use the competitors instead. You will quickly discover how much they suck.

I tink Google provides the best results for the customer. I think customers would gladly switch if there were better alternatives. Why use an inferior product when the best costs the same or less and is readily available?

N
Skyhook tried to sue Google for potential damages. It was thrown out in great part in that XPS was used in Many Non-android and Apple products and that their revenue stream was not being affected by such a decision.

I can't find any link to an article saying that the suit was thrown out - it was still live as of May 19th. Indeed the discovery process had turned up some very embarrasing emails from google. Link?

It opens up just how far google is willing to go to deny access to a competitor, and this is from a bunch of guys who are clearly android fans.

When the bunch was with Engadget they were accused of Apple favoritism. Who knew?

Anyway, as noted in most of the news articles, the complaints the FTC is checking come from competitors and not consumers. No surprise there. That's going to make it tough for take seriously. Proving Google really doesn't deliver the results an individual consumer is searching for is going to be exceptionally hard to show (in my experience it almost always does), and that's what would be needed to prove a search fraudulently led to some Google service wouldn't it?

That doesn't show the lawsuit was thrown out. That shows Skylink simply lost a preliminary Motion asking for an injunction of some sort or another. Injunctions hardly ever are granted at the early stages of a lawsuit.

That doesn't show the lawsuit was thrown out. That shows Skylink simply lost a preliminary Motion asking for an injunction of some sort or another. Injunctions hardly ever are granted at the early stages of a lawsuit.

Jexus is a paid Google representative trying to spin things in their favor. The old ones haven't been doing so well here, so they recently brought him on board, hoping for better results. Well, a dollar spent here is a dollar less in Washington.

That doesn't show the lawsuit was thrown out. That shows Skylink simply lost a preliminary Motion asking for an injunction of some sort or another. Injunctions hardly ever are granted at the early stages of a lawsuit.

Yes, indeed Google's own request for a summary dismissal in May was similarly rejected. Google may well decide to cave on this rather than take the heat at the FTC.

When the bunch was with Engadget they were accused of Apple favoritism. Who knew?

Pretty much all you have to do to be accused of Apple favoritism (repeatedly, loudly, angrily, with obscenities) is run the occasional article about Apple that doesn't explicitly denounce them as vile.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

I wonder if Steve Jobs will weaken and produce one. They held out for years against making an ultra-portable and now the air is huge. If the 7inch G-tab really sold even 3 mil then that would surely be a market worth entering.

I wonder if Steve Jobs will weaken and produce one. They held out for years against making an ultra-portable and now the air is huge. If the 7inch G-tab really sold even 3 mil then that would surely be a market worth entering.

Steve said how many times that users would never watch video on an iPod, then he gave us iPod + video.

That would make sense, though hopefully they would keep the current touch form-factor too - it's still a very big seller, 9mil units per quarter and 20mil over the holidays.

Apple may not call it an iPad, but a 7" form factor device from them would probably sell well, and be much more travel friendly. Mr. Jobs has changed his view before (ie no AppStore), so no surprise from me if one appears.

I wonder if Steve Jobs will weaken and produce one. They held out for years against making an ultra-portable and now the air is huge. If the 7inch G-tab really sold even 3 mil then that would surely be a market worth entering.

It's not a question of "weakening", they did their research, decided that 7" sucks, and they have no interest in making a product that sucks just to please a handful of people who don't realize that it sucks. The MBA is not the "ultra-portable" they said they weren't interested in making, those ultra-portables were netbooks, which the MBA is decidedly not. Three million isn't even worth the time it would take to design it.

I'm as confused about this as Google is. Why exactly is the FTC investigating Google? They don't really fit the classic definition of a monopoly. Anyone can choose another search engine as their default.

The issue is NOT the natural monopoly Google has on search.

Just like the problem was not Windows' monopoly in the PC market.

It is Google/Microsoft abusing their natural monopoly to enter other markets.

The MBA is not the "ultra-portable" they said they weren't interested in making, those ultra-portables were netbooks, which the MBA is decidedly not. Three million isn't even worth the time it would take to design it.

I'd disagree, the ultra-portables that people had been crying out for (at least some of us) from Apple where not cheap netbooks but something similar to the luxury Vaios from Sony. As for the market being too small for a 7inch, that may be true - but it may be worth it anyway to deny Samsung et al a niche, that might otherwise be a springboard into the tablet proper market.

Or that Freedompress.org and a coalition of unrelated Librarians and information professionals are making grass-roots efforts to stop the evil actions of Apple with respect to them heeding pressure from content holders and filing for patents that allow suspension of video and camera capabilities when iPhone users attend concerts and the like.

Shut down our ability to communicate visual information at concerts may seem innocuous, until governmental bodies seize control and shut down our ability to communicate visual information at political rallies and other such catastrophic or impugning possible events. (Big Brother is now)

I'm being sarcastic about the evil and Big Brother part... but it is a bit eerie when you think of the big picture.

Unfortunately, Apple's response does little to clarify the situation since they aren't revealing what the MTBF is for the hard drives. Apple and Western Digital are keeping those numbers tight lipped. Normally, a manufacturer would be touting those numbers for a true server-grade hard drive.

I'd disagree, the ultra-portables that people had been crying out for (at least some of us) from Apple where not cheap netbooks but something similar to the luxury Vaios from Sony. As for the market being too small for a 7inch, that may be true - but it may be worth it anyway to deny Samsung et al a niche, that might otherwise be a springboard into the tablet proper market.

Unfortunately, Apple's response does little to clarify the situation since they aren't revealing what the MTBF is for the hard drives. Apple and Western Digital are keeping those numbers tight lipped. Normally, a manufacturer would be touting those numbers for a true server-grade hard drive.